The movie Wag the Dog was considered by critics to be a pitch black political satire when it came out. Given Bill Clinton’s own sex scandals and some suspiciously-timed missile attacks against vague terrorist threats, it seemed to have a lot in common with current events, but the idea that the American government would make up a war that didn’t even happen to distract the public just before an election seemed to be a bit much for many people. You would think that the president making sexual advances on a girl scout-aged kid (as seen in the movie) would be the end of his political career.
But me, I see the movie after Donald Trump, a man who said and did things that would have sunk any other politician’s career on a nearly weekly basis, has left the Oval Office. Somehow, it seems a lot less dark as a result. But I’d rather judge the movie on its own merits and would prefer not to dig too much into politics.
An unnamed president is accused of making sexual advances on a firefly girl in the White House days before a presidential election. Though ahead in the polls, something like this would surely sink the president’s re-election hopes. Enter spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro). He has a long career of saving political lives, and despite the nature of the scandal, he’s sure he can find something to distract the public long enough to secure the president’s re-election. To that end, he and presidential assistant Winifred Ames (Anne Heche) recruit Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman) to manufacture a short war with Albania. Why Albania? Why not? No one will actually be going to war. It just has to look like the United States did so to get some terrorists.
That’s the premise, and given the satirical nature of the movie, it works. It would seem Hollywood and Washington, particularly the military-industrial complex, are bit chummier than one might think they are. I mean, in the real world, movies frequently get access to honest-to-goodness American military hardware as long as the movies make the military look good. That isn’t much of a surprise in 2021. Was it a shocker in 1997? I honestly don’t know off-hand. My guess is maybe. As far as the movie goes, it really runs with the idea. Motss brings in all manner of image consultants and others, really getting into the idea of creating a fake war. Brean is there along for the ride, solely for the politics of it, and he knows how to manipulate the public to create fervor. Indeed, nothing is really a major set-back for these characters, not even the fact that there isn’t any actual fighting going on. The people are told there is a war on, and they believe it.
Now, director Barry Levinson has a really impressive resume, and the script was co-written by David Mamet and Hilary Henkin, but since I didn’t see it when it was new, I am seeing it in a time when the Hollywood/Washington connection feels like something more people know about. At the very least, I think it could be argued that with the rise of more partisan news sources on 24 hour cable has made people perhaps more wary to distrust politicians based solely on their political affiliation, to say nothing of how easy it is with smartphones and social media to embarrass public figure, could a satire like this still be made? I think the answer is yes, but I have some doubts.
That said, while it maybe isn’t as bleak a comedy now as it was then, it’s still a well put-together piece of cinema. Beyond De Niro, Hoffman, and Heche, there’s a fine ensemble of actors here, with Woody Harrelson’s proposed war hero being the only character who seems to veer into more cartoonish territory, and even then it’s a dark cartoon. As strangely as this movie may have aged, that doesn’t make the central message here any less important: be careful what the rich and powerful tell you, and don’t believe everything they tell you.
Grade: B+
0 Comments